Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 14, 2025

Mallgren v. New York City

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-10067
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mallgren v. New York City, Chief Judge Swain denied the habeas petition without prejudice because Mallgren paid neither the fee nor the required application to proceed without paying it.

Who this affects

Anthony Brian Mallgren, whose petition was denied without prejudice; New York City was named as the respondent.

What happened

In Mallgren v. New York City, Anthony Brian Mallgren filed a petition for a court order concerning his detention or custody. The court previously gave him 30 days to either pay the required $5 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it.

Mallgren did neither. The court therefore denied the petition without prejudice, meaning the denial did not bar a later filing. The court also directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain said that the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. She declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to proceed without paying court costs for an appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Mallgren v. New York City · No. 1:24-cv-10067
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 14, 2025

Background

Anthony Brian Mallgren was the petitioner, and New York City was the respondent. Mallgren filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is a request for a court order addressing unlawful custody or detention. On February 5, 2025, the court ordered Mallgren, within 30 days, either to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee or to pay the $5 fee required to file the petition.

Ruling

Mallgren did not submit the application or pay the fee. The court therefore denied the petition without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The opinion does not decide the underlying habeas issue.

The court also determined that the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It therefore did not issue a certificate of appealability. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the required costs for an appeal. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the order of dismissal on March 14, 2025. The petition was denied without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.